Hard to say how Hines being around would have changed matters - by the end of 2011 Hines was the #5 receiver in terms of ability and keeping him around as a player-coach-motivator for what he wanted to be paid would have been tough if he could not lead by example on the field - at some point your younger players need to step up without adult supervision - some younger players assume that role as the next generation of leaders (Ward, Smith and Porter for the Steelers after 2001) and some do not (Burress). Wallace did not

What the playoffs showed to me was the happy talk earlier in the year about the Steelers having the best receiving corps in the NFL was a joke - in today's game you need some size at WR (Megatron, Julio Jones, Green) and the Steelers did not have that even on the days Wallace felt like playing

and think about who has won the last 3 SBs. Green Bay didn't have the biggest guys, but they had near perfect route running and execution and thrived on adjust to our D's weaknesses (Think Jennings on sideline talking about corner in the end zone being open all day long) - all on same page.

Giants WRs were even closer to our guys in terms of size and speed but fought a helluva lot harder than what I saw and had way better hands.

Ravens WRs were extremely physical and were not going to be out physicaled for the ball. Boldin, Smith and Jones caught the Broncos, Patriots, and 49ers secondaries with their pants down and made them pay with mid-air timing

When your corp can't hang their hat on any one ability, you're right - they can be somewhat overrated. I think you'll see our guys get back to the basics and possessing over anything else, or, we're toast again.

__________________MacReady: Beaver pics - don't think we're in much shape to do anything about this threadChilds: Well, what do we do?MacReady: Why don't we just . . .wait here and post for a little while longer . . . see what happens?

unless he plans on burning it quickly - why does this feel like another TO?

__________________MacReady: Beaver pics - don't think we're in much shape to do anything about this threadChilds: Well, what do we do?MacReady: Why don't we just . . .wait here and post for a little while longer . . . see what happens?

Hard to say how Hines being around would have changed matters - by the end of 2011 Hines was the #5 receiver in terms of ability and keeping him around as a player-coach-motivator for what he wanted to be paid would have been tough if he could not lead by example on the field - at some point your younger players need to step up without adult supervision - some younger players assume that role as the next generation of leaders (Ward, Smith and Porter for the Steelers after 2001) and some do not (Burress). Wallace did not.

Personally, I think the Steelers gave up on HInes way too early. I didn't say anything about it then, so I am not going to play the hindsight professor role here.

But seriously, he had a descent season in 2011, and then we came back from the lockout and suddenly he is over the hill? The long offseason and lockout did not benefit any teams or players, but I don't think guys go from productive to dead weight in a few months.

He spent the summer on dancing with the stars and whatnot. I am sure if he worked out again, he could have been a contributor still. They just did not want him around anymore because he did not fit their "young money" speed-influenced scheme.

These young punks seriously need Ward there to regulate. Remember how he made Mendenhall tote a ball around with him his rookie year after his first case of the drops? He could have setup a lockerroom rule that everytime someone throws the ball to Wallace and he doesn't catch it, he has to pay them $100.

If the Steelers make an offer to Wallace, I wonder what they would put on the table now, after the season he had. I doubt it would be the $10 million they seem to have offered at the start of the year.

__________________GO STEELERS!!"On the S-2-7 train"

The Following User Says Thank You to Riddle_Of_Steel For This Useful Post:

He's a free agent, 6'3" and his attributes and cons remind me a lot of Mike Wallace.

Difference? Guy can probably be had for 2-4 million a year and he's 2" taller than Mike.

I understand but honestly the negatives they are saying anyways, outweigh the additional 2 inches. He has problems in tight coverage and holding onto the ball with big hits - thats a problem we've already had to deal with. I dunno - he certainly couldn't be any worse.

__________________MacReady: Beaver pics - don't think we're in much shape to do anything about this threadChilds: Well, what do we do?MacReady: Why don't we just . . .wait here and post for a little while longer . . . see what happens?

He's a free agent, 6'3" and his attributes and cons remind me a lot of Mike Wallace.

Difference? Guy can probably be had for 2-4 million a year and he's 2" taller than Mike.

my best guess is 6-7.5 mil

__________________MacReady: Beaver pics - don't think we're in much shape to do anything about this threadChilds: Well, what do we do?MacReady: Why don't we just . . .wait here and post for a little while longer . . . see what happens?